Interpreting National Trajectories with Gellner, Anderson and Smith: The Case of Quebec Félix Mathieu PhD student in political science at the Université du Québec à Montréal Marc André Bodet Associate professor at Université Laval abstract Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith have had a significant influence in debates and theoretical discussions concerning the understanding of nations and nationalism. However, one should not accept such classic theories ipso facto without questioning their theoretical assumptions. Hence, we find that one way to better understand the way these theories are still relevant (or not) for the understanding of nations and na- tionalism is to confront their explanatory potential with a specific case. This is precisely the main objective, and therefore contribution, of this paper. We thus focus on a “problematic” or “abnormal” case relative to a more general understanding of what a nation and nationalism ought to be. We look at the Canadian province of Quebec, a minority nation that possesses its own independent institutional and societal culture, while evolving within a more encom- passing sovereign state — the Canadian federation. Our goal is less to provide an exhaustive account of socio-historical settings than to use Gellner, Anderson and Smith’s theories to provide a fair interpretation of the way Quebec has evolved as a minority nation within the Canadian federation. To our knowledge, no other study has applied a similar framework — these theories of nationalism and their testing — to the Quebec case. keywords minority nations; nationalism; Quebec; Ernest Gellner; Benedict Anderson; Anthony D. Smith; modernism; ethnosymbolism. Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith have had a signifi- cant influence in debates and theoretical discussions concerning the under- standing of nations and nationalism. In fact, they are still some of the most important authors in this field of study, and the vast majority of contempo- rary academic works that focus on nations and nationalism simply cannot ignore their contribution, in particular Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism Article received on 12/11/2018; approved on 13/02/2019. REAF-JSG 29, June 2019, p. 17-50 DOI: 10.2436/20.8080.01.33 17 Félix Mathieu, Marc André Bodet [1983], Anderson’s Imagined Communities [1983], and Smith’s The Ethnic Origins of Nations [1986].1 If one understands the meaning of “classic” as a must-read on a given topic, then all three are classics in this sense. Students of nations and nationalism ought therefore to understand the theoretical foundations upon which they rely and the practical implications of their conclusions. However, one should not accept such classic theories ipso facto without questioning their theoretical assumptions. Hence, we find that one way to better understand the way these theories are still relevant (or not) for the understanding of nations and nationalism is to confront their explanatory potential with a specific case. This is precisely the main objective, and therefore contribution, of this paper. We thus focus on a “problematic” or “abnormal” case relative to a more general understanding of what a nation and nationalism ought to be. We look at the Canadian province of Quebec, a minority nation that possesses its own independent institutional and societal culture, while evolving within a more encompassing sovereign state — the Canadian federation. One should keep in mind that, for Gellner, nationalism refers to “a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be con- gruent”. 2 Smith and Anderson share a similar perspective. In general, their respective theoretical frameworks rest on the assumption that nations ought to be sovereign states3 within which there should be only one majoritarian nationalist movement as opposed to also having a minority movement within its midst: “the nation is […] a deep, horizontal comradeship”,4 its members “are similar and alike in those cultural traits in which they are dissimilar from non-members”.5 1. Cf. Guénette and Mathieu, “Nations et nations fragiles”; Kennedy,Liberal Nationalisms; Özkirimli, Theories of Nationalism; Larin, “Conceptual Debates”; Stevenson, Parallel Paths; Dieckhoff and Jaffrelot,Repenser le nationalism. 2. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 1. 3. Özkirimli, Theories of Nationalism, 106 and 154. 4. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 7. Our emphasis. 5. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, 26. However, as we will discuss below, in his book National Identity, Smith does take into account the specific cases of minority nations. 18 REAF-JSG 29, June 2019, p. 17-50 Interpreting National Trajectories with Gellner, Anderson and Smith: The Case of Quebec Hence, federations, such as Canada, and regional states, such as Spain, which harbour subnational communities pose serious challenges to the theories of all three.6 Therefore, are such theories relevant to explaining and understand- ing nationalism and national trajectories in cases where minority nations exist? This question holds even if the theories were designed to explain the historical course of majority nations, and to elude the question of minority nations. In other words, can Quebec as a minority nation be explained and understood by the theories of Gellner, Anderson, and Smith? In this article, we focus on Quebec’s national trajectory since the 18th cen- tury. Our goal is less to provide an exhaustive account of socio-historical settings than to use Gellner, Anderson and Smith’s theories to provide a fair interpretation of the way Quebec has evolved as a minority nation within the Canadian federation. To our knowledge, no other study has applied a similar framework — these theories of nationalism and their testing — to the Quebec case. We argue, on the one hand, that the theories advanced by Gellner, Ander- son, and Smith are relevant for explaining minority nations’ trajectories and nationalism despite the fact that their analytical frameworks tend to reject them as problematic cases, or as an anomaly set that will eventually disappear over the course of modernity. Discussing and confronting such theories with an “abnormal” case may then help us identify limits to their explanations of the national phenomenon. But, most importantly, it is a stimulating way to bridge the gap between some of their theoretical expectations — in par- ticular, that nations ought to be sovereign states — and their potential in explaining and understanding the trajectory of minority nations. On the other hand, let us clarify that our objective is not to refute their the- ories — that would be well beyond the scope of this article. More simply, it is to challenge some of the basic assumptions upon which they rely. Of course, many more theories could have been included in the discussion. As these theories unequivocally represent some of the most widely discussed theories in the literature, we narrowed our focus down to those of Gellner, Anderson and Smith. But that does not mean that the equally “classic” theories put forth 6. Cf. O’Leary, “An Iron Law of Nationalism”, 280. REAF-JSG 29, June 2019, p. 17-50 19 Félix Mathieu, Marc André Bodet by Hans Kohn, Elie Kedourie, Tom Nairn, Eric J. Hobsbawm, etc., should not receive similar attention in future studies. First, we synthesise the modernist theories that Gellner and Anderson pro- pose, followed by the explanation of ethnosymbolism as understood by Smith. Then, we confront Quebec’s national trajectory with Gellner, Anderson and Smith’s theories, testing whether or not these frameworks can be applied to minority nations. This article does not suggestipso facto that all minority nations’ trajectories are to be explained and understood by those theories, but rather that a minority nation’s experience, perhaps Quebec’s, can. Nonethe- less, we think scholars will find interesting perspectives by confronting such “classic” theories of nations and nationalism with minority nations and other “problematic” experiences. Whether federations or regional states break up or assimilate their subnational constituents — and thus corroborate Gellner, Anderson and Smith’s theories — or if they find institutional arrangements which allow for peaceful cohabitation as formal multinational democracies or federations, such authors are still relevant for the study of nations and nationalism, in either its majoritarian or minority expression. 1. “Classic” Theories of Nations and Nationalism On the following pages, we offer a synthetic account of Gellner’sNations and Nationalism, Anderson’s Imagined Communities, and Smith’s The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Of course, the arguments articulated by all three have gone beyond the three books under examination. However, those works contain their central arguments, which is why they are being used here. The first two addressed here — the theories of Gellner and Anderson — rest upon a modernist approach.7 Modernist theories of nations and nationalism can be understood, first, by their complete rejection ofprimordialism . Pri- mordialism suggests that nations and their pre-modern ethnic versions are universal and timeless characteristics of mankind.8 But, as Larin suggests, “sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe is almost alone among specialists in 7. This brief presentation of the basic rationale and promoters of primordialism, modernism and ethnosymbolism was inspired by Mathieu (2017: 143-144). 8. Cf. van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon. 20 REAF-JSG 29, June 2019, p. 17-50 Interpreting National